HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
S.P. Balakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram - Respondent
Crl. A.No. 423 of 2014
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a former Deputy Tahsildar, was convicted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification for issuing a solvency certificate. The defacto complainant, Shanmugam, applied for the certificate and was asked for bribes on multiple occasions. A trap was laid, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved both the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification, as evidenced by the testimonies of the complainant, shadow witness, and trap laying officer, as well as documentary evidence and chemical analysis.
Issues: The issues revolved around the consistency of witness testimonies, the timing of the solvency certificate issuance, and the recovery of additional money from the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contradictions in witness testimonies did not impeach their reliability, and the prosecution had successfully proved the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused were confirmed. The period of sentence already undergone was set off, and the accused was to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in Spl.Case No.1 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Vigilance, Villupuram and set aside the conviction and judgment dated 24.07.2014.)
1. The appellant herein is the former Deputy Tahsildar. He was convicted by the Special Court (Anti-Corruption Cases), Villupuram in S.C.No.1 of 2013, dated 24.07.2014, for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Aggrieved, this Criminal Appeal is preferred.
2. The brief facts of the case:-
Shanmugam(defacto complainant), who was running Meera Driving School at Thirukovilur to get Driving School License was in need of solvency certificate. Hence, made application to the Tahsildar, Villupuram for solvency certificate on 24.09.2001. The said application was forwarded to the Revenue Inspector for further action. When Shanmugam (PW-2) approached the Revenue Inspector, he directed him to fill up certain forms and hand over to the Deputy Tahsildar, Balakrishnan, who is the accused/appellant herein. Accordingly, he submitted the form and chalan for payment of fee Rs.125/- on 25.09.2001. On that day evening, when the defacto complainant contacted the accused, he demanded Rs.1000/- and also to pay another Rs.50/- in the Treasury and hand over the receipt. Accordingly, he paid Rs.50/- on 26.02.2001, gave the receipt to the accused and waited for solvency certificate. Next 3 days, he did not receive any information. So, he again went to the office of the accused. That day, the accused directed him to get encumbrance certificate, ''A'' register copy and guidelines value in the property, which he had shown as solvency. When he arranged for those certificates and handed over to the accused, again the accused demanded bribe of Rs.1000/- to process the application. The defacto complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, hence, lodged a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit at Cuddalore, Inspector of Police registered the complaint and arranged a trap and in the presence of the shadow witnesses viz., Kanagasabai and Gopinath. Before proceeding to the office of the accused, they demonstrated the significance of phenolphthalein-sodium carbonate test. Bribe money of Rs.1000/- (one Rs.500/- note and 5 Rs.100/- notes) were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Entrustment mahazar carrying the denomination of the bribe money smeared with phenolphthalein was recorded. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the Tahsildar Office at Villupuram. The defacto complainant along with one of the shadow witnesses Kanagasabai went inside the Tahsildar Office at about 3.00 p.m. The accused asked defacto complainant whether he has brought the money as demanded. In response, the defacto complainant gave the tainted money to the accused. The accused, on receiving the money, counted it and kept in his left side shirt pocket. Thereafter, the defacto complainant and Kanagasabai came out and gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap team. On receiving the signal from the defacto complainant, Mr.Balasubramanian, Inspector of Police and his team went to the office of the accused. The defacto complainant and Kanagasabai identified the accused and the accused was asked to dip his left hand fingers in the colourless sodium carbonate solution. On dipping the colourless solution turned light red. Sample was collected from that, sealed and labelled. The right hand fingers of the accused was also dipped in the colourless sodium carbonate solution. On dipping the colourless solution turned light red and the sample was collected, sealed and labelled. When the accused was asked where he kept the money, he took the money from his pocket and handed over it to the trap laying officer Mr.Balasubramanian. After verifying the numbers in the currency and the numbers noted in the entrustment mahazar, are being sati
The judgment establishes the importance of proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through direct evidence, corroborative testimonies, and documentary evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the charges of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money beyond reasonable doubt.
The proof of demand is essential to establish the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute the offence unless th....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to establish the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions in evidence ma....
The court upheld that demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct offences, allowing for separate convictions based on the same facts.
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven as a fact, and the prosecution can rely on direct or circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
The prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and the accused must rebut the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.